Dong Zhou wrote:The government has to mollycoddle the mistakes of the public constantly. Like "if you paid no attention to the letters we sent, the appeals in every media outlet, the news and everything else about the changes to your pension" then there is pressure for the government to pay up for these poor victims. Or the ever popular "voted for you but we dislike that your doing what you promised"

I was thinking more along the lines of "oh, you didn't know picking up a bird feather was illegal? Oh well, a year in prison."

The government itself doesn't even know all of it's own laws, but it sure won't mind nailing you to the wall if you break one.

Perhaps I'm perhaps harsher on the government than I should be, but they've done everything they could to earn it, really. Carrying out chemical experiments on their own citizens, for instance.

Gray Riders wrote:I was thinking more along the lines of "oh, you didn't know picking up a bird feather was illegal? Oh well, a year in prison."

The government itself doesn't even know all of it's own laws, but it sure won't mind nailing you to the wall if you break one.

Perhaps I'm perhaps harsher on the government than I should be, but they've done everything they could to earn it, really. Carrying out chemical experiments on their own citizens, for instance.

I can't speak for the last one (although I've heard it in various instances), but I have to agree wholeheartedly on the first thing. The Lacy Act (in America) is one example of the massive number of ways the government can convict you in ways that most citizens can't even imagine.

The Lacy Act; 16 U.S.C SS 3370 (paraphrased; emphasis mine) wrote:It is unlawful for any person...to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase, any fish, or wildlife, or plant, taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States, or in violation of any Indian Tribal law, or any law or regulation of any state, or any foreign law.

And to quote former professor and criminal defense James Duane on the subject on a speech he gave at his university -

James Duane wrote:People have been convicted in federal court for violating this statute because they brought back a Bony Fish from Honduras, not knowing that Honduran law, not American but Honduran law, forbade the possession of the Bony Fish. People have been convicted under this law because they were found in possession of what's called a short lobster, a lobster that is under a certain size. Some states forbid you from possessing a lobster if he's under a certain length. It doesn't matter if he's dead or alive. It doesn't matter if you killed it, or if it died of natural causes. It doesn't even matter if you acted in self defense. Did you know that? Did you know it could be a federal offense to be in possession of a lobster? Admit it, raise you hand if you did not know that. There's the problem. And that's only one of ten thousand different ways.

There is no way for ordinary citizens to know in what ways they might accidentally break some law or another; and when they do, they can expect almost no empathy from their government in response. It's not like it's any particular persons' fault - Cops are trained to identify when crimes are broken and arrest them, detectives gather sufficient evidence to bring it to the prosecutor's office so they can bring the individual to trial - ideally with little to no effort - and prosecutors are working to get convictions. They're all doing their job as well as they can. But the current situation has a number of negative effects that can be felt throughout.

One is erosion of trust and faith in the system. When innocent people get convicted - hopefully it doesn't happen too often, but we know it happens - it erodes trust. But not just innocent people. When guilty people are tried and punished for seemingly innocuous things or other "victimless crimes", it also erodes trust. Next, we have these people serve time, frequently in hard prison, not jails, and are driven into a cycle of poverty and crime which is often extremely difficult to climb out of. This document goes into great detail about the high recidivism rate among those who were incarcerated in a federal prison.

On the whole, I think the system is actually set up well; but there are specific issues, beginning with the laws that are created, following into police procedures and trial procedures, that are contributing to this issue.

This has been a peeve of mine. Having sort of immigrated to Korea from the US way back in 2001 for non-political reasons, I find it annoying that people think you can just get your passport and go. For one, you don't necessarily escape racism and bigotry just by dashing off to another country. Second, it makes light of true refugee situations like Syria where people are literally fleeing for their lives. Third, it's not a straightforward process for an American, especially if you want to go to another "Western" country where the culture shock will be more limited. If you don't have professional or trade skills, guess what, Yank? Places like Australia and Canada have no use for you.

re: Trump winning

Mainstream media was having a field day over the past few months bashing Trump. I could never align myself with the Republican party since I consider myself far too left-leaning on social and business issues, but media outlets showed no mercy when pouncing on Trump's numerous gaffes and brazen promises, while simultaneously trying to brush the Clinton email scandal under the rug and run with the status quo. Honestly, I found it disgusting. As I watched it unfold, I kept thinking to myself, after all of this bravado, wouldn't it be intriguing if it blew up in the DNC's face? If Trump pulled off the upset?

Lo and behold...

re: Disenfranchised voters

It's clear from my perspective that Trump's campaign resonated with a certain alienated group of voters (and I don't mean that condescendingly). I remember reading, back in 2012 I think, possibly during or just after the election campaign that year, an article about how the Republican party has an uphill battle because demographics are rapidly shifting against them. I jokingly commented elsewhere that someone in the DNC read the same article and took it to heart, because they tried to mail it in on this run. And while I am very bothered by some of Trump's pledges during his campaign - many of which he already seems to be back-pedaling on - he managed to tap into something and get the Republican party back in the game.

Also telling! The Republicans swept the House and took the majority in the Senate. The fact that Obama Democrats spent eight years spinning the wheels against a majority Republican House and not getting anywhere never seemed to click...

I'm personally disillusioned with the two-party system - have been since the "Produce a birth certificate, Obummer!" days. On the one hand, you have Mrs. Clinton serving as a poster child for shady government dealings. On the other, Trump has managed to renege on many of his original pledges (I find the South Korea military one hilarious, myself). It's six of one, a half dozen of the other, but meanwhile the brewing racial tensions that have been brewing the past few years have bubbled up to the surface and it's drawing attention away from this fact. Trump won't rock the boat as much as his voters hoped. The status quo will mostly be maintained. Neither candidate actually mattered in terms of that, the only real difference is that Republicans now have four years of unfettered access to pass or strike down motions along the party line.

I really hope that over the next few cycles, a prominent third party can arise and shift the scales toward something less straight-up partisan. But I'm worried that third party will end up being Libertarians, which wouldn't sit well with me

Dong Zhou wrote:The government has to mollycoddle the mistakes of the public constantly. Like "if you paid no attention to the letters we sent, the appeals in every media outlet, the news and everything else about the changes to your pension" then there is pressure for the government to pay up for these poor victims. Or the ever popular "voted for you but we dislike that your doing what you promised"

I was thinking more along the lines of "oh, you didn't know picking up a bird feather was illegal? Oh well, a year in prison."

The government itself doesn't even know all of it's own laws, but it sure won't mind nailing you to the wall if you break one.

Governments tend to be slow to abolish ridiculous laws (partly becuase laws can lapse here I think) but it is up to the police, the prosecutors and the legal system unless your in a country where the judiciary is run by the government. If I was prosecuted for something, my MP and neither the Justice Secretary or Home Secretary would not be behind that decision. What a silly prosecution and jail does is undermine faith in the law here, I don't think people here blame the government but may be very different in the US.

In terms of transporting animals into country, that is generally not a good idea if your not an expert. If you want a pet, buy domestic and if you must import, check the rules thoroughly

Perhaps I'm perhaps harsher on the government than I should be, but they've done everything they could to earn it, really. Carrying out chemical experiments on their own citizens, for instance.

I'm not aware of my government doing this so why should it be tarred with it? If it has, what about the MP's that opposed to that? I realize your talking something in the US but when we get the same lazy complaints as your guys do, there is a wider issue. A specific accurate complaint about a specific person or set of persons is perfectly fair, lazy generalized inaccurate whines whines are not or the ridiculous demands/positions public hold "vote for welfare cuts, whine like hell when it happens".

Mainstream media was having a field day over the past few months bashing Trump. I could never align myself with the Republican party since I consider myself far too left-leaning on social and business issues, but media outlets showed no mercy when pouncing on Trump's numerous gaffes and brazen promises, while simultaneously trying to brush the Clinton email scandal under the rug and run with the status quo. Honestly, I found it disgusting. As I watched it unfold, I kept thinking to myself, after all of this bravado, wouldn't it be intriguing if it blew up in the DNC's face? If Trump pulled off the upset?

We had plenty of coverage of Clinton's emails across the pond, intresting you guys didn't.

On the one hand, you have Mrs. Clinton serving as a poster child for shady government dealings. On the other, Trump has managed to renege on many of his original pledges (I find the South Korea military one hilarious, myself).

I think a lot of people had wider issues with Trump (we will see what he actually does given time) like racism, sexual assault, misogyny so those depressed, the other hand involving is rather darker then Trump possibly being a bit wild with his pledges.

“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”

Dong Zhou wrote:In terms of transporting animals into country, that is generally not a good idea if your not an expert. If you want a pet, buy domestic and if you must import, check the rules thoroughly.

Not even transporting animals; everything I've checked seems to confirm that under US law you spot an eagle feather on the ground, decide to take it as a souvenir, and get jail time for it.The US might be particularly bad about this, though this is the US election thread so it seems appropriate.

I'm not aware of my government doing this so why should it be tarred with it? If it has, what about the MP's that opposed to that? I realize your talking something in the US but when we get the same lazy complaints as your guys do, there is a wider issue.

I'm not trying to say "blame every government official for everything anyone in the government does". What I do think is there's a very strong perception of "the government" as a single monolithic entity that expects us to follow it's regulations and laws strictly, but holds it's own promises and duties much more lightly, which has led to a general dissatiscation about the situation.

I definitely should have phrased it differently, but an incident up here from last month was on my mind; one of the things Justin Trudeau campaigned on last year was reforming the electoral system within eighteen months, saying that "first past the post" would be gone. Last month was the one year anniversary of his election. Now, trying and failing to do it would be one thing, but Mr. Trudeau stated that:

“Under Stephen Harper, there were so many people unhappy with the government and their approach that people were saying, ‘It will take electoral reform to no longer have a government we don’t like’. But under the current system, they now have a government they’re more satisfied with and the motivation to change the electoral system is less compelling,” he said.

Dong Zhou wrote:We had plenty of coverage of Clinton's emails across the pond, intresting you guys didn't.

I wouldn't say it wasn't covered. (Also, I am an unreliable source since I live outside the US and get most of my media from SNS nowadays.)

It's more like, when viewing CNN (International) or whatever, the issue would come up from time to time, but end up being framed in such a way that I felt it was being scooted under the rug in favor of taking digs at Trump.

On the one hand, you have Mrs. Clinton serving as a poster child for shady government dealings. On the other, Trump has managed to renege on many of his original pledges (I find the South Korea military one hilarious, myself).

I think a lot of people had wider issues with Trump (we will see what he actually does given time) like racism, sexual assault, misogyny so those depressed, the other hand involving is rather darker then Trump possibly being a bit wild with his pledges.

I'm not sure if I'm reiterating what you said here and if I am I apologize. But the point I was getting at - and I realize it's a bit tin foil hat - is that the only difference politically between Trump and Clinton is that Trump winning means Republicans have four years of easy passage of their agendas, whereas Clinton winning just meant that the US government would be dead in the water for another term (read: yearly US budget crisis leading to sovereign credit rating concerns).

Trump campaigned on change just like Obama did back in 2008. And I expect he will end up slightly right-leaning center before too long, just as Obama end up going left-leaning center. We're not looking at a super hawk, trial by fire with China scenario unfolding here, that's my prediction. Drone attacks, Gitmo, ominous ISIS enemy, hands off when it comes to Syria and China's maritime pressuring of other countries, all these status quo points will be maintained, just as they were when Obama was at the helm.

The social issues are troubling because society is rallying behind them on both sides in a big way, but from a political standpoint it's all smoke and mirrors; Trump isn't going to pass truly mass deportation or institute blatantly racist/misogynist policies. (Just subtle ones...)

Gray Riders wrote:Not even transporting animals; everything I've checked seems to confirm that under US law you spot an eagle feather on the ground, decide to take it as a souvenir, and get jail time for it.The US might be particularly bad about this, though this is the US election thread so it seems appropriate.

That seems an odd rule

I'm not trying to say "blame every government official for everything anyone in the government does". What I do think is there's a very strong perception of "the government" as a single monolithic entity that expects us to follow it's regulations and laws strictly, but holds it's own promises and duties much more lightly, which has led to a general dissatiscation about the situation.

I have heard of such an attitude but it is one I haven't seen much in the UK. Don't know if it says something about culture or US laws/government

I definitely should have phrased it differently, but an incident up here from last month was on my mind; one of the things Justin Trudeau campaigned on last year was reforming the electoral system within eighteen months, saying that "first past the post" would be gone. Last month was the one year anniversary of his election. Now, trying and failing to do it would be one thing, but Mr. Trudeau stated that:

“Under Stephen Harper, there were so many people unhappy with the government and their approach that people were saying, ‘It will take electoral reform to no longer have a government we don’t like’. But under the current system, they now have a government they’re more satisfied with and the motivation to change the electoral system is less compelling,” he said.

The NDP went on the attack right away, to no one's surprise.

I get the sense he may have looked at the problems/work in getting electoral reform and since he showed his side of things can get elected, he can't be bothered It doesn't read well at all even with that, I would be annoyed. We had something like that here in 2010, the then third party Lib Dems promised to bring back university for free (rather then university for free but if in future you earn a good wage, you start paying it back) to get student vote and made a big song and dance about it. Lib Dems ended up in a shock coalition and Lib Dems hastily dropped it in exchange for 90% of their manifesto (and I suspect Lib Dems made the pledge thinking they would not be in office so no sympathy). Lots of outrage and Lib Dems never recovered but hard to sympathise with the outraged given the violence, effigies, lies (the educational establishment here does seem to have a tendency to protest and lie about measures that help the poorest), that they didn't even bother to vote anyway. Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg apologized and got held to account for years, none of the liars or violent had to.

I think politicians need to be far more careful at what the big promise or reform is going to be, particularly on electoral reform. I also think that sometimes even a big promise has to go, sometimes it turns out not to be workable, sometimes the effort and political capital required is simply not going to be worth it compared to what else would have go to the wayside to allow that promise to be enacted.

Zyzyfer wrote:I wouldn't say it wasn't covered. (Also, I am an unreliable source since I live outside the US and get most of my media from SNS nowadays.)

It's more like, when viewing CNN (International) or whatever, the issue would come up from time to time, but end up being framed in such a way that I felt it was being scooted under the rug in favor of taking digs at Trump.

I'll be honest, I didn't get the fuss about the Clinton emails. It showed arrogance, poor judgement and it was right to be investigated by the authorities to see what was being hidden but it seemed to come far more then that. I swear we have had two cabinet ministers do that but after the fuss and investigation, it died down, it didn't last a year, no talks of lynching and jailing without process, not mass protests. I can't recall who said ministers were it was that small.

I'm not claiming moral superiority, we have a witch-finder general as deputy leader of the opposition, we have two cabinet ministers destroyed becuase of others lies (police and guardian), a shadow minister sacked in last parliament for taking photo of a house covered with flag (literally, all she did) and our parliament+media is too ken to be judge, jury and executioner rather then let process unfold but the Clinton email fuss, I didn't get it.

Zyzyfer wrote:The social issues are troubling because society is rallying behind them on both sides in a big way, but from a political standpoint it's all smoke and mirrors; Trump isn't going to pass truly mass deportation or institute blatantly racist/misogynist policies. (Just subtle ones...)

Ah ok, I get what your saying now. I'm not so confident that Trump won't do at least some of what he said and if he backtracks too much, the anger of betrayal among his voters is going to be even more poisonous. So that also worries me greatly

“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”

Dong Zhou wrote:I get what your saying and agree with pretty much all of it but if Democrats want to get back in power anytime soon, they need to avoid the trap the left here can sometime fall into and they seem to be doing with Corbyn. The left can have a bit of a habit of going "oh yes, we know what the working people want", congratulating themselves on how in touch they are through their rallies and social media presence and fail to notice the working class don't actually support what they are saying. I'm not saying Sanders can't work, as I understand it he had working class support but struggled with BME's?, but he would have to go down a different route to Corbyn who is failing to build working class support for various reasons.

Here's the thing.

I was born in Wisconsin, and I've lived for significant stretches of time in industrial Rust Belt towns in Michigan and Pennsylvania. The people in these towns, even the working-class white people that everyone's talking about now, are not racists. They turned out in droves for Obama in 2008 and 2012, whereas this year, in increasing numbers, they either stayed home or voted Trump.

Sanders appealed to folks in these states in a way Clinton never could, and it has nothing to do with the reasons you're giving. He was, even more so than Trump, willing to attack the shibboleths of the academic 'left', such as: free trade is never bad, unions are outmoded and ineffective, a rising tide lifts all boats, and American military power has a responsibility to defend people abroad even when we aren't under attack. Unlike the academic 'left' and the broad technocratic-Wall Street centre; Sanders talked their language and he didn't talk down to them. Clinton failed miserably on all of the above counts. She promised not to help them get their jobs and dignity back, and she did promise to send their sons off to die in Syria against Assad (and possibly Putin).

Corbyn does have something of a 'street-preacher' problem, I sometimes feel, but he is likewise bringing up issues that directly appeal to Labour's forgotten northerners and industrial labour class. The question now is, will the Labour parliamentarians listen to his message, and will Corbyn be able to find a successor who marries working-class concerns to a solidly anti-interventionist platform?

Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.

From what I could find out it has something to do with anti-poaching laws and being a Strict Liability offence (meaning they don't need to prove mens rea).There's an exception for Native Americans due to religious reasons, however.

I think politicians need to be far more careful at what the big promise or reform is going to be, particularly on electoral reform. I also think that sometimes even a big promise has to go, sometimes it turns out not to be workable, sometimes the effort and political capital required is simply not going to be worth it compared to what else would have go to the wayside to allow that promise to be enacted.

That's the thing. Even though I support election reform I never believed Trudeau would actually do it (the only question for me was whether he'd try and fail or "change his mind" after swinging some traditional NDP votes for that election), so I'm not angry so much as unhappily vindicated.

I'll be honest, I didn't get the fuss about the Clinton emails. It showed arrogance, poor judgement and it was right to be investigated by the authorities to see what was being hidden but it seemed to come far more then that. I swear we have had two cabinet ministers do that but after the fuss and investigation, it died down, it didn't last a year, no talks of lynching and jailing without process, not mass protests. I can't recall who said ministers were it was that small.

I think some of the overreaction is because there was a feeling that the media was downplaying it while putting as much negative attention on Trump as possible, combined with backlash over the Bernie Sanders issue.Franly I think there's much bigger concerns about Clinton's suitability for president than the E-mail issue.

In some ways my main concern about Trump's election isn't what he'll do--people were claiming that Bush's second term was inevitably going to cause the apocalypse, and again when Obama was elected--but rather it seems like it could be the tipping point for the ugly divide building in the US for so long. Look at all the "white people did this they need to die" rhetoric flying around the internet, or the reports of hate crimes increasing after Trump won.

WeiWenDi wrote:Here's the thing.

I was born in Wisconsin, and I've lived for significant stretches of time in industrial Rust Belt towns in Michigan and Pennsylvania. The people in these towns, even the working-class white people that everyone's talking about now, are not racists. They turned out in droves for Obama in 2008 and 2012, whereas this year, in increasing numbers, they either stayed home or voted Trump.

Sanders appealed to folks in these states in a way Clinton never could, and it has nothing to do with the reasons you're giving. He was, even more so than Trump, willing to attack the shibboleths of the academic 'left', such as: free trade is never bad, unions are outmoded and ineffective, a rising tide lifts all boats, and American military power has a responsibility to defend people abroad even when we aren't under attack. Unlike the academic 'left' and the broad technocratic-Wall Street centre; Sanders talked their language and he didn't talk down to them. Clinton failed miserably on all of the above counts. She promised not to help them get their jobs and dignity back, and she did promise to send their sons off to die in Syria against Assad (and possibly Putin).

Corbyn does have something of a 'street-preacher' problem, I sometimes feel, but he is likewise bringing up issues that directly appeal to Labour's forgotten northerners and industrial labour class. The question now is, will the Labour parliamentarians listen to his message, and will Corbyn be able to find a successor who marries working-class concerns to a solidly anti-interventionist platform?

I really appreciate this post, WeiWenDi. On many forums you wouldn't see it or anything like it because anyone willing to say they don't think everyon who voted Republic is a racist KKK member would get driven off--quite possibly with moderator assistance--but it does a good job of explaining the election outcome to non-Americans like me who are uncertain about what happened.

Dong Zhou wrote:I get what your saying and agree with pretty much all of it but if Democrats want to get back in power anytime soon, they need to avoid the trap the left here can sometime fall into and they seem to be doing with Corbyn. The left can have a bit of a habit of going "oh yes, we know what the working people want", congratulating themselves on how in touch they are through their rallies and social media presence and fail to notice the working class don't actually support what they are saying. I'm not saying Sanders can't work, as I understand it he had working class support but struggled with BME's?, but he would have to go down a different route to Corbyn who is failing to build working class support for various reasons.

Here's the thing.

I was born in Wisconsin, and I've lived for significant stretches of time in industrial Rust Belt towns in Michigan and Pennsylvania. The people in these towns, even the working-class white people that everyone's talking about now, are not racists. They turned out in droves for Obama in 2008 and 2012, whereas this year, in increasing numbers, they either stayed home or voted Trump.

Sanders appealed to folks in these states in a way Clinton never could, and it has nothing to do with the reasons you're giving. He was, even more so than Trump, willing to attack the shibboleths of the academic 'left', such as: free trade is never bad, unions are outmoded and ineffective, a rising tide lifts all boats, and American military power has a responsibility to defend people abroad even when we aren't under attack. Unlike the academic 'left' and the broad technocratic-Wall Street centre; Sanders talked their language and he didn't talk down to them. Clinton failed miserably on all of the above counts. She promised not to help them get their jobs and dignity back, and she did promise to send their sons off to die in Syria against Assad (and possibly Putin).

and when I said I agreed with what your saying bar Corbyn (choosing him for appeal to working class is like saying one should appeal to the religious by making Richard Dawkins your leader) you thought was that I disagreed with most then that? I agree with the large majority of your assessment and where the left has failed

I am not qualified in US politics to know whether Sanders would or wouldn't work, I heard he was good with the working class, abysmal with BME's. I would be wary of the counter-factual (right word?) I have seen from some (not you but some) where not so much "you guys lost so let us have a go ans here's why it could work" but "you guys lost and we would have automatically won", it's a dangerous trap. Sanders or an appropriate successor can use Clinton's failings to earn a chance but the left needs to be wary of "if we had gone done this route, we would have won.", it leads to not fixing the wider problems.

I may not agree with Sanders policies but I know that the stances I take are electorally dead for at least a decade now. It sucks but we deserve it as a faction of politics, too much up our own backsides and dismissing with shrill voice anyone who disagreed as racist or some evil mc evil pants among many other failings. I also think we will see gay marriage cemented but social liberalism start to decline as well.

Corbyn does have something of a 'street-preacher' problem, I sometimes feel, but he is likewise bringing up issues that directly appeal to Labour's forgotten northerners and industrial labour class. The question now is, will the Labour parliamentarians listen to his message, and will Corbyn be able to find a successor who marries working-class concerns to a solidly anti-interventionist platform?

Corbyn's recent displays of competence and the heavy defeat does seem to have brought MP's more onside, I think he will (with some wobbles along the way) get to the election. The chances of a Corbynite successor depends very much on the results of said election and what state the factions are in.

Corbyn does have some stuff that should, in theory, appeal to the working class yet he doesn't. Corbyn appeals very strongly to those who vote Green, the Ken Loach's, those that vote for TUSC party and so on. Not the many millions more who vote UKIP or identify with UKIP even if thy would never vote for them or swing voters. Is it the message or the messenger? Probably a bit of both

Message: Over here, the left has a problem in terms of their policies don't just have to be popular but convince people they are fiscally responsible. That doesn't seem a problem in the US though. Where US might want to watch is the failure of Labour to build popular policies into a winning package, a narrative that cuts through. Corbyn is the latest to struggle with that. Where there is also issues is that economics from Labour has been overshadowed by some of the other things Corbyn and his faction love. Trident for example. A lot of Labour's wider package is beloved of the Greens and so on but to the working class is either something they just don't care about, don't think about it day day to but uneasy at his breaking the consensus on or Corbyn's passionate stance on certain issues (welfare, immigration) are so far away from them that he might as well be from Mars. I may personally agree with some of Corbyn's stances and if I was Labour leader I would be advancing stuff that would be unpopular with the population but I recognize that.

Messenger: When people make up their minds within first 6 months, that awful start didn't help but there is something deeper. Corbyn is viewed as a political outsider, as a nice guy but he is also seen as very much of London lefties. He fits a certain stereotype: the London metropolitan leftie, reads guardian, wears sandals, has beard, eats muesli (no idea if he does but the stereotype is), probably a vegetarian, goes on marches and supports all sorts of "right on" causes. Loves to talk about the working man but has as much in common with the working class as a man from Mars (or myself ). People think Corbyn is a nice chap but his values are not there's, that he is seen as part of the group that looks down on them. Failing to sing the anthem may be an unfair story but it has killed him with the working class becuase he fits into the feeling that he doesn't get their patriotism, their values, their concerns.

I guess the equivalent would be selecting a leftie from New York? Lessons from Corbyn's would probably be don't play into a negative stereotype (like don't pick from New York or Washington), focus on economy rather then go into area's the working class are not going to like you for, work out quickly where to compromise with the voters, be wary of the hardcore backers for they can mislead or get you into trouble, understand working class version of patriotism still has a strong impact.

Gray Riders wrote:From what I could find out it has something to do with anti-poaching laws and being a Strict Liability offence (meaning they don't need to prove mens rea).There's an exception for Native Americans due to religious reasons, however.

Your banned from hunting swans over here due to being Queen's property I believe. Don't know when anyone was last prosecuted for it though

That's the thing. Even though I support election reform I never believed Trudeau would actually do it (the only question for me was whether he'd try and fail or "change his mind" after swinging some traditional NDP votes for that election), so I'm not angry so much as unhappily vindicated.

but it fuels the discontent/frustration and I don't blame you for that

In some ways my main concern about Trump's election isn't what he'll do--people were claiming that Bush's second term was inevitably going to cause the apocalypse, and again when Obama was elected--but rather it seems like it could be the tipping point for the ugly divide building in the US for so long. Look at all the "white people did this they need to die" rhetoric flying around the internet, or the reports of hate crimes increasing after Trump won.

If it helps, we are having that here. We call it Brexit! It is a big concern of mine but I think it is like you say a tipping point of something that has been building a long time. The bubbling anger, the political bigotry, the widening gap between city and rural (to overly simplify)

“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”